Guest Voices: Blue State Methodist, Red State Methodist

Blue State Methodist, Red State Methodist

By CARL BERNSTEIN

Before making a final decision in 1999 to undertake a biography of Hillary Rodham Clinton, I called a mutual friend—a woman as close, politically and personally, as any to the outgoing first lady. ‘The first thing you have to understand about Hillary is her Methodism,” this woman said. “Religion—and family—are the starting points.”

I was not surprised at the invocation of the importance of family in the Hillary Rodham Clinton schema, but religion and Methodisim, and some New age variants, it turned out, were indeed key to understanding Hillary Clinton. Her spiritual life, as I discovered, has always informed and infused her political life, and vice versa.

“Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, as long as ever you can,” John Wesley had preached to his followers-- among them Rodhams in the Welsh countryside, Hillary’s father had told her. For the young Hillary Clinton this Wesleyan article of faith became a mantra.

“While Bill sought solace in his familiar escapes,” I wrote in the prologue of 'A Woman in Charge,' "she read the Bible of her Methodist childhood and considered anew this explicit message of service in John Wesley’s teaching. . . Aside from her family, Hillary’s Methodism is perhaps the most important foundation of her character. As one of her aides said during the winter’s night of the Lewinsky epoch, ‘Hillary’s faith is the link.' …It explains the missionary zeal with which she attacks her issues and goes after them, and why she’s done it for thirty years. And, it also explains the really extraordinary self-discipline and focus and ability to rely on her spirituality to get through all this [Lewinskiy, impeachment, etc]….She’s a woman of tremendous faith. Again, not advertised. She’s not one of those people who’s out there doing the holy roller stuff. But that’s how she gets through it: some people go to shrinks, she does it by being a Methodist.”

Within four weeks after Bill’s inauguration in 1993, Hillary had joined a women’s prayer circle whose members were a surprising group, among them Susan Baker, the wife of James Baker, the Bush’ family’s grand retainer and former secretary of state; Joanne Kemp, wife of the former Republican congressman Jack Kemp, who would run for vice president against the Clinton-Gore ticket in 1996; Grace Nelson, wife of Demcoratic senator Bill Nelson of Florida; and Holly Leachman, wife of Washington Redskins chaplain Jerry Leachman and herself a lay minister at the McLean Bible church in Virginia, where many prominent Republican senators and conservative luminaries worshipped, including Kenneth Starr, soon to be the special prosecutor committed to indefatigable pursuit of Hillary Clinton.

Each of Hillary’s “prayer partners,” with whom she tried to meet each week when she was in town promised to pray for Hillary regularly and presented her with a handmade book of biblical passages, personal messages and spiritual axioms to help sustain her during her time in Washington. Holly Leachman would come to the White House to pray with Hillary throughout the Clinton presidency, and Susan Baker became a pillar of sisterly spiritual support during Hillary’s personal political difficulties in the aftermath of her health care debacle, the death of her father, and the months of Lewinsky madness.

Though Hillary would later be accused by opponents and enemies of cynically becoming religious and adopting more traditional values for the purpose of political advancement after her election to the Senate, the charge was not grounded in fact. But there were colleagues and presidential aides in the White House who viewed her religious life with suspicion and cynicism, on other grounds, identifying it as an enabling element of a self-righteous streak that undermined her supposed “good works,” and generally served to cover her faults. Some saw it as a mask in her relationship with her husband.

"She elevates her staying with [Bill] to a moral level of biblical proportion,” said a presidential deputy. “‘I am stronger than he is. I am better than he is. Therefore, I can stay with him because it’s my biblical duty to love the sinner, and to help to try to overcome his defects of
character. His sins are of weakness not of malice.’ ” Others noted her forgiveness of her husband through the difficulties of their marriage, but that—far from invoking any biblical notion of forgiveness towards the women involved with him—she had them investigated, encouraged efforts to smear them in the press, and in private, promised retribution.

Perhaps the most revealing interview she gave between her husband’s election and inauguration was with the United Methodist News Service, though it received scant attention in the mainstream press. A single paragraph encapsulated much of what her friends found so appealing about her, and her enemies were most enraged by: her seeming moral certainty.

Methodism’s “emphasis on personal salvation combined with active
applied Christianity,” she said, was what she believed in. “As a Christian,
part of my obligation is to take action to alleviate suffering. Explicit
recognition of that in the Methodist tradition is one reason I’m comfortable
in this church.”

A native of Washington, D.C., Carl Bernstein is a former reporter for The Washington Post. He and colleague Bob Woodward won a Pulitzer Prize for their reporting of the Watergate scandal in 1973 and they wrote two books about the Watergate affair, “All the President’s Men” and “The Final Days.” In the movie version of “All the President’s Men,” Bernstein was played by Dustin Hoffman. He left The Post in 1976 to pursue an independent writing career. He has published books on his parents, who were communists (“Loyalties: A Son’s Memoir”), on Pope John Paul II (“His Holiness”) and most recently on Hillary Clinton (“A Woman in Charge”). He lives in New York City.

By BOB WOODWARD

Examining, even discussing, President George W. Bush and his religion is one tricky undertaking for a reporter. I would normally pass but my friend Sally Quinn has insisted and pressed like a good editor, saying in an e-mail: "When can we get your piece. Sorry to bug you." I suspect she is not that sorry.

Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, any person's declarations about religious convictions and practices have to be taken pretty much at face value. So let me turn to interviews I did with President Bush in December 2003 that touched on religion or God.

The morning of March 19, 2003, he gave the final order for the Iraq War. After giving the order, he said, he went out through the door in the Oval Office to walk by himself. He was hoping that his dogs Barney or Spot would be there. "It was emotional for me, it really was."

I asked, "You prayed?"

"I did pray," he said. "Of course. I prayed going into the room. I prayed a lot during this period by the way . . . I prayed as I walked around the circle." (A White House photo of him walking alone that morning appears in my 2004 book, "Plan of Attack.")

I did not really expect him to answer the next question. "Can you tell me what the gist of those prayers were?"

"I prayed that our troops be safe, be protected by the Almighty, that there be a minimal loss of life," President Bush said.

He continued, "Going into this period, I was praying for strength to do the Lord's will . . . .I'm surely not going to justify war based upon God. Understand that. Nevertheless, in my case I pray that I be as good a messenger of His will as possible. And then, of course, I pray for personal strength and for forgiveness."

About a month after these interviews, Condi Rice, then the national security adviser, called to say that she had reviewed a transcript of the interviews with Bush and she had discussed the March 19, 2003, prayers with the president. She said he also prayed that morning for all those who were to go into harm's way and for the country. So I added such a line to the book.

Whatever anyone might think of Bush, the Iraq War or his religious views, it seemed to me that he was taking his prayers very seriously that day. And as the commander-in-chief he should. (The above is taken from Plan of Attack p. 379.)

I also asked the president about what advice or recommendation his father, the former President Bush, might have given him about going to war with Saddam Hussein. Bush senior had led the international coalition in the first Gulf War in 1991 against Saddam Hussein who had invaded and occupied neighboring Kuwait.

President Bush replied, "I can't remember a moment where he said, 'Don't do this' or 'Do this.' I can't remember a moment where I said to myself, maybe he can help me make the decision. Because you got to understand, this decision is not like all of a sudden there is a threat to Kuwait. And boom. This is part of a larger obligation that came to be on September the 11th, 2001."

I asked if he had any discussions with his father prior to the war.

"I'm confident---sure we did. I'm trying to remember. It is an incredible history to have a father and son fight a war in the same theater. That's never happened before."

President Bush continued, "I'm not trying to be evasive. I don't remember. I could ask him and see if he remembers something."

I pressed because it seemed that of all people he would have found a way to ask his father.
After some additional back and forth, President Bush finally said a line that has been much quoted---rightly so, in my opinion. The line is, "You know, he is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I appeal to." (This is taken from Plan of Attack, pp. 420-21)

I was very surprised and I should have been quick enough to ask that he give me the gist of those appeals to the higher father. But I did not. And it is still unclear what recommendation President Bush's father---the lower father, if you will---might have made.

In retrospect two of the questions I wish I had asked are:

"What does it mean to 'be as good a messenger of His will as possible'?"

"How do you know and evaluate if you are on the right course?"

Bob Woodward, a Yale graduate who served in the Navy, became a reporter for The Washington Post in 1970. He teamed up with Carl Bernstein to investigate the Watergate affair. After winning a Pulitzer Prize in 1973, they wrote the best-selling books “All the President’s Men” and “The Final Days” which chronicled the end of the Nixon administration. In the movie version of “All the President’s Men,” he was played by Robert Redford. He went on to write best-selling books on the Supreme Court (“The Brethren”), the CIA (“Veil”), the Clinton administration (“The Agenda”), and the U.S. war in Iraq (“Bush at War,” “Plan of Attack” and “State of Denial.”). He has also written two more books about Watergate (“Shadow: Five Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate" and “The Secret Man: The Story of Watergate’s Deep Throat”). He is now an assistant managing editor of The Post.

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.

http://moreaboutmen.com/abc/z/

Posted by: Gxzkibe | December 13, 2007 9:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment

http://moreaboutmen.com/abc/z/

Posted by: Gxzkibe | December 13, 2007 9:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment

http://moreaboutmen.com/abc/z/

Posted by: Gxzkibe | December 13, 2007 9:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment

http://fotospornosite.biz/map.html
>

Posted by: teen | August 9, 2007 11:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

pkszfm ubcgrzen zwlotfeq vyikcwg rbqa foqlmj istgymxr

Posted by: exyjmwal ilwzhu | July 13, 2007 7:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I have been a United Methodist all of my life. The fact is that there is no difference between Methodist churches in the South and those elsewhere in the country. I am originally from the South and attended several different Methodist churches here in Ohio. Noteably, while the national leadership of the United Methodist church is decidedly "progressive" (aka liberal), the lay members of many Methodist churches are very conservative in nature. This has certainly been the case in all of the Ohio UMC churches that I have been a part of. The United Methodist church emcompasses a wide range of opinions. Yet, we are all Methodists. The characterization of "progressive" Methodists as caring for people while conservative Methodists as caring only for themselves is totally inaccurate. The conservative Methodist churches that I have been a part of serve their community and beyond in a great many ways. They offer grief counseling, food pantries, financial aid to the needy only only within the community but also across the nation domestically and well as internationally. These same conservative Methodist churches also offer programs for all families such as afterschool programs. The liberal minded Methodists do tend a lot of social issues, but have little grasp of the implications of their demands. For example, the "Peace with Justice" advocates have no real plan for either a real peace or true justice with a world that has adversaries who have no connection at all with Jesus' teachings for peace, justice, forgiveness and tolerance. These adversaries cannot be overcome by merely turning the other cheek either.

I am the husband of a serving Methodist minister. I am also a Reservist who will be deploying to Baghdad by the end of the summer. I also strongly believe in these words that were written a couple of hundred years ago.

"All that evil requires to succeed is for good men to do nothing"

Posted by: A lifelong Methodist | June 27, 2007 9:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment

((((((((((( B R E A K I N G *** N E W S )))))))))))

Important News: Bin Ladin, founder of Al Quada, via Muhajeen & Talibani, IS DEAD!

He died this month in an undisclosed Location by overdose of heroin or Kidney or heart failure??.

If any one knows an accurate account then please let US know. Thank You.

Remember: "Gitmo" and other facilities, is just a "Rehab Center" For extreme cases of "KoranaholicISM", and they like it there (secret Prisons) so much that most of them do not want to leave. Maybe they like Thorozine. So we are winning and there compadras are loosing. And

Brethren(s) & Sistar(s), please uphold "Secular-King & Queen" Bush's, wishes for the good of "The-Peaple" of Earth, not just America & friends.

Question: What is the Difference between a "Lame-Duck", A Elephant & a Donkey? Same Shiat! Ya Ya. And there is nothing Sunny about It! Ya Y.

Bless America & Friends.

Bless America & Friends. So let's celebrate his death this 4th of July & more! Ya Ya Ya.

Hip hip Horray!

Posted by: Ja Joz | June 27, 2007 9:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment

With all due respect to conservatives, Bush is NOT a Christian. Of course he TALKS a lot, but his actions betray his motives.

Posted by: AMviennaVA | June 27, 2007 8:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment

When this thread plays out what will have been accomplished other than* my politician is better cause they are members of the RIGHT CHURCH.*
I am a believer but some of this rhetoric is beyond belief.

Posted by: 2B | June 26, 2007 11:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The Hillary haters posting here can hardly be considered decent human beings, let alone 'people of faith' or 'christians' for that matter.

Posted by: gregor | June 26, 2007 10:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Carl,

How much is the Billary Lobbyist machine paying you for all this crazy propaganda?

For that matter, how much is the WaPo charging the Billary Lobbyist machine for all this front page neo-consense?

Posted by: The.Man_in_Black | June 26, 2007 10:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment

A point of correction regarding the comment that Hillary Clinton is a United Methodist and George Bush is a Southern Methodist. While the President can speak for himself (albeit unlikely here), I believe that comment is wrong. George and Laura Bush attended a United Methodist Church in Texas (and attended a United Methodist Church in DC in the late 1980's when they were living here during the first Bush presidency.) The Southern Methodist Church is tiny (6000 members compared to 8 million United Methodists), and there is no evidence that the Bushes are members of the SMC. However, they clearly are on the conservative side of the United Methodist membership.

Posted by: JHH | June 26, 2007 10:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: JHH | June 26, 2007 10:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I was a United Methodist clergy person for 24 years. I can tell you that even though I do not always agree with Ms. Clinton I have seen the underpinnings of Methodist thinking behind much of her public life. Her committment to children and to social justice come from a "practical theology" that is Methodism at its best. John Wesley's movement in the 1700's kept a bloody revolution from England which had taken over France. How? By putting people of faith out on the streets and prisons to bring tangible grace to people most hurt by the powerful people of their day.
Hilary represents the best of that tradition and when interviews she shows a sudle, profound understanding of Wesleyan Christianity.
George Bush became a United Methodist as an adult. He is the first president since George Washington who has refused to meet with United Methodist bishops. The reason for this is that most of his political causes are in direct opposition to a church that official positions affirm a woman's right to chose, believe war is the last and worst option for human conflict, and puts the poor at the heart of social concerns.
George Bush is United Methodist in name only, Hillary on the other hand, has taken her faith seriously. That doesn't make her perfect, but then again, who is?

Posted by: Tim Lusk | June 26, 2007 10:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Melinda, don't give that stupid sob-story about how Christians aren't allowed to pray in schools or give religion-driven speeches. At the high school I attended a Muslim girl wasn't allowed to pray to Mecca during school hours - so she had to leave on her lunch break to do so. All the while, students were encouraged to pray during the morning hours - and there were tons of school-sponsored religious events. Sports teams prayed before events. Atheists are the least trusted "religious" group in the U.S. - and I think he should have every right to thank whomever he likes - our valedictorian thanked God. I just don't believe I should be ousted because I don't believe in God - yet I find I usually am.

Posted by: Luke | June 26, 2007 9:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment

As I read this story about Senator Clinton and the President a new clarity about the anti-Clinton faction of the American political scene. A significant percentage of this group claim to be Christians yet when they talk about the Clintons and other Democrats or heaven forbid liberals who want to help the poor and needy of the world,they continually violate directives from Jesus Christ as noted in the Gospel of Luke "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven." As a side commentary for some of them ... Jesus in that same chapter of Luke said, "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you. If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also. Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them, Do to others as you would have them do to you." If you read some policy statements from alleged Christian groups it is difficult to see how their views correspond with the Gospels.

For the non-Christians ... when anyone claims the name of Jesus Christ as their own but fails to follow his teachings it makes them hypocrites not necessarily Christians (Christians are not perfect and can be hypocrites too). Please do not judge our faith by those who take actions based on hate rather than the love we are told to have. If you read the message of Jesus you will see what our faith is supposed to be based on.

United Methodist churches are open to all so we do have a diversity in membership and in political viewpoints but if we follow Jesus then we are serving our world just as the Gospels told us to. We do not worship John Wesley but his thoughts on how we should live out our faith is why many of us who claim the name United Methodist do so.

Like a fellow reader, right now I have a new positive sense about the Senator from New York that I didn't have before. Mrs. Kemp and Mrs. Baker and those other ladies who apparently became Hillary's friends and prayer partners are astute individuals they did not get caught up in the talk radio attack genre but chose to share a time of faith with someone who has a life time commitment to her religion. And again ... one should not judge another but you do get a sense of one's faith by the actions they take serving those in need in the world.

Posted by: Dave Delaney | June 26, 2007 8:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hillary Clinton is a vessel of "applied Christianity"? George W. Bush is a "messenger of God's will" who "prayed and prayed again" as he attacked Iraq? How low have these once reputed journalists Woodward and Bernstein sunk to speak in these terms about two individuals who together willfully engineered or were directly complicit in the worst military blunder and geopolitical defeat in the history of the United States? Self-absorbed poses as people of faith will fool only those determined to be deceived. Is Sally Quinn behind these absurd little essays on the alleged godliness of criminal incompetents?

Posted by: california condor | June 26, 2007 8:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

No disagreement on the above similarities as they seem shared by many politicians. In addition, those godless, atheists politicians, like Hitler and Stalin, seemed to have an abundance of these similarities. I guess even rational, atheists political leaders can be irrational and have irrational followers?

Posted by: Tim | June 26, 2007 7:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Both are;

Corporate shills a.k.a. Corporate Wh*res

Dangerous

Insincere narcisstic politicians

Secretive and despise oversight

Warhawks

Followed by ignorant sheeple

You forgot those similiaritys

Posted by: Your Conscience | June 26, 2007 7:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Pre-Iraq War, bush prayed a lot and even Condi prayed as well.

Judging from the mess we're in, god wasn't listening.

Posted by: Mr. Mark | June 26, 2007 7:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I drop in on these conversations from time to time and the dogmatic language by almost everyone is perplexing. Seldom do I hear a "reasonable" voice. And frequently the discussions get downright nasty.

It a is a shame that people cannot be more tolerant of beliefs that differ from their own. That should be one of the difining characteristics of a real "American," regardless of ideology.

It seems that perhaps "Certainly not going to use my name" is correct in their assessment of these so-called conversations, which in reality do little to promote dialog.

If everyone could be just a little bit less "certain" of the "truth" of their personal convictions, maybe we could learn something from each other...

Posted by: Big Daddy Steve | June 26, 2007 6:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment

JoZevZ:

Why is this valdictorian refused the right to pray at his public school when muslims are encouraged to wash their feet before prayer at their public school..

Care to comment?

"Practicing Muslims bathe their feet before praying five times a day. As a recent graduate of the University of Michigan-Dearborn and two-term president of the student body, I was disappointed that some would attempt to twist a benign plan — spending $25,000 to help accommodate Muslim students to do this on campus — into a wedge issue in the debate on secularism in America.

Public universities have always been empowered to take action to accommodate the social and religious needs of students. Helping people practice their faith comfortably on an individual level at a public institution should not in any way be misconstrued as a threat to the separation of church and state in America. A sizeable minority of students at UMD will benefit from the installed footbaths and other faiths will not be affronted."

http://www.arabamericannews.com/newsarticle.php?articleid=8925

Posted by: melinda | June 26, 2007 6:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment

A Christian does not lie repeatedly. Which of these two do?

Posted by: QuestionMark | June 26, 2007 6:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Whoever thinks George Bush is a "Southern Methodist" doesn't have a clue. He is a member of the same United Methodist Church in Dallas, TX that I am, where as a gay I wear a rainbow lapel pin cross to Sunday services and where I am enthusiastically and sincerely welcomed by the clery and all other members I have personally encountered. Methodism is a very big tent, indeed. "Southern Methodism" is, gratefully, gone with the wind.

Posted by: reader | June 26, 2007 6:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment

This is the first time I have visited this site.

All I can say is . . . . wow.

Nice article. As a democrat, I find myself beginning to:

a) Think maybe Senator Clinton would not be such a bad candidate; and

b) See the human side of President Bush, and feel a little more compassion for his difficult presidency, even if I do disagree with almost every decision he has made.

As for the posters, most of you people appear to be psychotic. How is it that a website devoted to religious conversation seems only to have brought out the true nuts on both sides rather than normal people of faith/non-faith?

You people should do some serious mirror-looking.

Posted by: Certainly not going to use my name. | June 26, 2007 5:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

To Gregor concerning Hillary Clinton. A series of articles about the Clintons in 1992 by the New York Times revealed numerous unsavory business dealings by both. Plus there have been allegations of continuous extramarital affairs involving both- before and after the 1992 election- and the fact that they now lead basically separate lives- he in New York and she in Washington in what some might call a sham marriage or marriage of convenience. Granted, the previous dealings of George W. Bush show that he is no Boy Scout, but one can make a case that his wife has had a positive influence on his life- to include recovery from alcoholism. By contrast, Hillary's main dealings with Bill seems to have been that she stayed with him in order to further her own political ambitions. This type of hypocrisy, combined with the moralistic tone of articles such as the one above, have ignited dislike and even hatred among those- both liberal and conservative- who do not like either of these people and wish they would disappear from American political life.

Posted by: George Robertson | June 26, 2007 5:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The difference between Bush Methodism and Clinton Methodism is much like the difference between the southern and northern view of things to my eyes.

Having spent half my younger years in the south, mid atlantic and mid west. I feel that southern methodists tend to be more conservative. The open hearts and open minds are more open in the Mid Atlantic.

Posted by: liberal methodist | June 26, 2007 5:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment

'....but used only as a means to bolster their own feelings of moral superiority.'

Hey, this whole site is designed to make the persons of faith, whatever that means, feel morally superior.

I come here to just point out that, by definition, there is nothing superior about being a 'person of faith' as the tendency to give so much importance to having faith is a residual of human beings' irrational beginnings.

Faith can not solve any problems. Only reason and scientific approach to life can. So the whole raison d'taire for this site is bogus.

Posted by: gregor | June 26, 2007 5:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I'm not surprised: I've noticed that Hillary Clinton had a very righteous and moral streak early on.

Most religious conservatives jumpt to smear Hillary or other religious Liberal politicans and tend to forget that a large part of Jesuit, Methodist and even Masonic thought revolved around taking action to fight what is perceived as injustice and to work to help others in whatever way possible.

Posted by: Drew | June 26, 2007 4:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I'm not surprised: I've noticed that Hillary Clinton had a very righteous and moral streak early on.

Posted by: Drew | June 26, 2007 4:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I continue to be disappointed with the postings under On Faith articles. Instead of engaging in a dialogue sprung by the report, we are instead sprayed with diatribes that scatter about the political landscape. It seems the atheist patrolling these waters are particularly adept at using these posts as a launching pad for grenades not meant to spur conversation, but used only as a means to bolster their own feelings of moral superiority.

Posted by: TB | June 26, 2007 4:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I don't understand the pathological hatred that the Conservatives have for Hillary. What has she done that is so evil?

Aspiring to be the President? Relentlessly trying to achive this goal?

It's not as if their Republican sweethearts are exmplary and selfless human beings who have sacrificed for the nation like Gandhi or Mandela.

Posted by: gregor | June 26, 2007 4:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear God,
I am to You forever grateful for Your Creation. You placed Your eternal Hand upon the Earth and created Man. You have created him of every tongue and race, and gave him the capacity to grasp at least some of the vast multiplicity which You precisely engineered.
Thank You, Lord, for bringing us together tonight to celebrate both our achievements and those individuals who have helped lead us to this level of accomplishment.
Also, lest we forget about You in the midst of our individual successes, I ask You impart in us an understanding and remembrance of Your omnipresent power and might.
Lord, I pray that You guide, protect and bless us.
I give You all praise and honor for Your Creation, for Your love, for Your mercy, and for the life that You proffer to us daily. In Jesus Christ's Name, Amen.

Prayer in Jeremy Jerschina's Valedictory Address he was NOT ALLOWED to give.

http://www.hudsonreporter.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18519215&BRD=1291&PAG=461&dept_id=532622&rfi=6

Posted by: melinda | June 26, 2007 4:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Correction -- According to Wikipedia, both are United Methodists...

But, it's worth noting that all Methodists are not the same...

And, it probably just goes to show, you generally get what you want out of religion.

Posted by: A Reader | June 26, 2007 4:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Just a quick thought -- But Hilllary and George aren't followers of the same branch of Methodism -- I suppose this may seem like splitting hairs, but Hillary is a United Methodist, and George a Southern Methodist. In my experience (as a United Methodist) there are significant differences in outlook and beliefs between the two (Southern Methodist seems to believe in a literalist/fundamentalist interpretation of the bible -- UMC allows followers to apply interpretation to the scriptures).

If you're interested in learning about the differences between the two, you can look at their sites:

www.umc.org
www.southernmethodistchurch.org

Posted by: A Reader | June 26, 2007 3:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment

It seems abundantly clear that Hillary Clinton remained married to Bill Clinton not because she deeply believed in the sanctity of her marriage vows but to further her political ambitions. Like many people infatuated with power, she is able to convince herself that the inner yearning for more power is in fact connected to a spiritual relationship with the Almighty and that she will do more good than evil if she is able to obtain and to use her power. And that's the common thread between her and George W. Bush, not their specific religion.

Posted by: George Robertson | June 26, 2007 3:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment

And...

NEITHER ARE FIT TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!

Posted by: JBE | June 26, 2007 3:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

One can see a great contrast of faith in the two Methodist. Bush believes in a cosmic Santa Claus who will bring you want you want if you pray for it. That your will decides what you want and if you ask nice enough God will give it to you. Hillary by contrast looks at the world and asks for guidance on what sort of world God wants. Then she tries to shape her actions to fulfill God’s will. Hillary was brought up in the Methodist Church and went through confirmation. This ensures she has a deep understanding of the faith. Bush by contrast joined the church upon his marriage to Laura. He did not go through confirmation. If he was serious about being a Methodist, he would of joined a local Church in Austin and in Washington, not still have his membership in Dallas where he has not lived in 15 years. Bush talks a good game about being a Christian but I find I get along better with people who live a Christians and who don’t need to remind me they are Christians.

Posted by: Brad McGrew | June 26, 2007 3:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Read recently that some brain scientists think they identified religious behavior as being hardwired. I must miss that wire. And, indeed, I think it's more a short circuit in many folks.

I can only recommend Sagan's 'Demon Haunted World', it very nicely sheds light on these short circuits.

We are losing reason and fact based decision making, moving to faith and 'guts' feeling. More gullibility. Where that is going to lead us is very nicely displayed in the Islamic world. Is that where we want to move?

I pledge for reason.

Posted by: Richard | June 26, 2007 3:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

They both have the same religion one that kills alot. I am grad I don't believe in their God.
Which is dog spelled backwards.

Posted by: Arthur Gittleman | June 26, 2007 2:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

For about a year and a half I attended, in the terms such churches like to use, a "Bible-believing" "spirit-filled" church. The latter term means they believe in speaking in tongues. I went to Bible study and prayer meetings as well. This was not a store-front church but a nationally established denomination, Assemblies of God.

Let me state categorically, these churches, whose congregations make-up what we call evangelical or fundamentalist Christians -- the Christian Right -- do not believe the Methodist Church is a true Christian church. And don't get me started on their attitudes toward the Catholics.

In the public political areana, the Christian Right continually and enthusiastically yokes themselves to unbelievers, according to their own theology. If George Bush was just an ordinary citizen, met a member of a "Bible-believing" church, and got into a discussion of religion, the "fundamentalist" would work at converting him to "genuine" Christianity and later in the day would probably pray for Mr. Bush's salvation.

Posted by: Mike D. | June 26, 2007 2:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gregor,

Attempting to link rational thought to the religious right was your first mistake.

Posted by: Chris S | June 26, 2007 2:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hillary Clinton's views on going to war, Saddam, and WMD

Hillary Clinton talks about her vote to go to war, Saddam, and WMDs 2 weeks before war in a meeting with Code Pink in March 2003.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8&mode=related&search=

Posted by: linda | June 26, 2007 2:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Mr. Woodward
Your reporting on Watergate was fair. Thank you. Nixon’s tapes, which he believed to be his private opinions and thoughts turned out to be a bird on the ground-fair game.
Now in what you call interview with--aka investigation of--Pres. Bush you resort to probing his prayers? Pray tell us what is the end game or gist here, gaining insight or-indictments? Where do you draw the line in your reporting and is it real or just imaginary.
In view of your @Breaking News@ throughout Pres.Fords death and internment I now seriously question your reporting ethics.
As this forum investigates Faith , a Bible verse in closing speaks a simple truth.
~~ Matthew 7:20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them. ~~
Regards

Posted by: 4th watch | June 26, 2007 1:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Perhaps the Christians here can explain to me as to why the person whose lies and/or actions caused deaths of tens of thousands of human beings is considered by American Evangelical and other Chritians on the right to be a paragon of virtue, morality and faith, while another who lied about his personal failings but brought propsperity and hope to tens of millions of Americans is considered by the same Christians to be the devil incarnate.

For any rational person, the Christian right's stance on these two men would be reason enough to remain an atheist.

Posted by: gregor | June 26, 2007 11:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Carl wrings his hands over newspaper decline:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BtDcRKBn-Y

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2007 11:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Both Clinton and Bush are Methodists, both have strong faith and we know their political and social outlooks are very different. So much for any theories about monolithic behavior by Christians, even from the same denomination. This reinforces the idea that we should vote based on a person's political agenda, their past voting record and only consider their particular religion or denomination as secondary, if at all. What matters is not their faith but how this part of their character comes out in their politics and how that aligns with our own political leanings.

Posted by: Tim | June 26, 2007 10:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Bob Woodward,

You wrote:

"Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, any person's declarations about religious convictions and practices have to be taken pretty much at face value."

Let me rephrase this to say what I think everyone, and particularly reporters, should hold as an operating principle:

"Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, any person's declarations about religious convictions and practices have to be taken WITH A HUGE GRAIN OF SALT."

You also wrote that President Bush prayed when he started the Iraq War. No he didn't, he PREYED.

Isn't it interesting that both the President and Condi Rice prayed only for the American troops about to go into battle. Not a word to God for the hundreds of thousands of innocents these two praying mantises were about to kill.

Is that what it says in the Christian Bible?

Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | June 26, 2007 10:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hmmm, reporters writing books about politicians???
Negative comments = no more interviews/exclusives. Can we then trust what they say???

And of course Methodists as with most Christian-based religions also believe in "pretty wingie talking thingies" giving rise to more suspicions about said believers.

" The angels of God have great power, in particular, over the human body; power either to cause or remove pain and diseases, either to kill or to heal. They perfectly well understand whereof we are made; they know all the springs of this curious machine, and can, doubtless, by God's permission, touch any of them, so as either to stop or restore its motion. Of this power, even in an evil angel, we have a clear instance in the case of Job; whom he "smote with sore boils" all over, "from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot." And in that instant, undoubtedly, he would have killed him, if God had not saved his life. And, on the other hand, of the power of angels to heal, we have a remarkable instance in the case of Daniel. There remained no "strength in me," said the prophet; "neither was there breath in me." "Then one came and touched me, and said, Peace be unto thee: Be strong, yea, be strong. And when he had spoken unto me, I was strengthened." (Dan. 10:17, &c.)

John Wesley-- Sermon 71

"Article XIV

Of Satan, Angels, and Demons

We believe in the reality of the person of good angels, bad angels, demons, and of Satan, "that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world."

Well at least John W. did not have his own personal angel. I wonder where Moroni and Gabriel fit in the Methodist way??

Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | June 26, 2007 10:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment

V.O.T.E. ((((((((((( Peace-Love-Rock-n-Roll-n-Rap, Mitt-ROMNEY, for Prez. 2008. Yes! )))))))))))

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2007 9:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.

Posts By Category

Posts By Date

Blue State Methodist, Red State Methodist

Comments